Daniel Hannan cuts through the disinformation routinely spewed by the pundit class to reveal the true historical nature of fascism, albeit as it pertains to British politics. The lessons, however, are applicable here as well.

'I am a Socialist,' Hitler told Otto Strasser in 1930, 'and a
very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count
Reventlow'.

No
one at the time would have regarded it as a controversial statement.
The Nazis could hardly have been more open in their socialism,
describing themselves with the same terminology as our own SWP: National
Socialist German Workers' Party.

Almost everyone in those days accepted that fascism had emerged from the
revolutionary Left. Its militants marched on May Day under red flags.
Its leaders stood for collectivism, state control of industry, high tariffs, workers' councils.
Around Europe, fascists were convinced that, as Hitler told an
enthusiastic Mussolini in 1934, 'capitalism has run its course'.

One of the most stunning achievements of the modern Left is to have
created a cultural climate where simply to recite these facts is
jarring. History is reinterpreted, and it is taken as axiomatic that
fascism must have been Right-wing, the logic seemingly being that
Left-wing means compassionate and Right-wing means nasty and fascists
were nasty. You expect this level of analysis from Twitter mobs; you
shouldn't expect it from mainstream commentators.

There is hardly a public
issue less understood than immigration policy. Yet its political impact
will decide every public policy—jobs, healthcare, taxes, gun-control,
government spending, everything—because it will determine
the future electorate. But our immigration policies are based largely
on emotion rather than fact and logic, and on deadly political myths
rather than truth. Let us examine three of the most popular and dangerous
myths that imperil our nation.

Myth 1. Border Security will fix the problem.

Just securing the border will NOT prevent massive
illegal immigration. According to the Center for Immigration Studies
(CIS), at least 30 to 40 percent of illegal immigrants enter the country
by obtaining legal work, study, tourist, and other temporary visas and
then throwing them in the trash and staying in the country indefinitely.
According to the Pew Hispanic Institute, more recent illegal entry by
visa violation is running close to 50 percent of the total. For decades,
the United States has exercised only meager and occasional internal
control of who is coming, going, or staying. Once in the country, internal
enforcement of immigration law is essentially don’t-ask-don’t-tell
except when serious crimes are committed. In fact, because of politically
motivated overly zealous civil rights concerns, internal immigration
control has been actively discouraged.

Given our negligible and reluctant enforcement of visa laws, sneaking
across the U.S. border is increasingly unnecessary for illegal
immigrants. Securing the border is necessary, but unless it is accompanied
by strong internal enforcement of immigration laws, we have an effectively
open-border immigration policy.

The 1987 Amnesty, actually passed by Congress and
signed (with considerable reservation) by President Reagan on November
6, 1986, contained many promises of tough-minded internal immigration
control, particularly to protect jobs for U.S workers. But as soon as
it was passed, these promises were ignored. Internal immigration enforcement,
in fact, became progressively dismantled as politicians pandered to
ethnic voting blocks and commercial demands for cheaper and easier-to-get
imported labor.

Reagan later told his Attorney General Ed Meese that
signing the 1987 Amnesty was the greatest mistake of his eight years
in the presidency.

Beware of political leaders who emphasize only border
security to control illegal immigration. They should know better. My
purpose in writing this is that the voters do know better.

Myth 2. Illegal Immigrant workers benefit the economy.

Employment is the great magnet for illegal immigration.
Many CIS studies and the work of Harvard labor economist George Borjas
confirm that, although there are many notable exceptions, taken as a
whole the last several decades of immigrants are not really adding to
the economy. They add to the profits of those who employ cheap imported
labor, but they are displacing American workers, and their numbers are
creating an excess labor supply driving American wages down. This is
particularly acute for Americans with a high school education or less
and becoming a problem at higher skill levels. That is the reason American
workers are not benefiting from top-line economic growth. As Robert
Rector of the Heritage Foundation has pointed out, the excessive number
of unskilled and poorly educated immigrants—about 80 percent of the
total—has created a considerable fiscal drag on federal, state, and
local governments, and taxpayers. The Federation of Americans for Immigration
Reform (FAIR) estimates this to be about $100 billion per year considering
ONLY education, healthcare, and law enforcement. There are other significant
but less easily quantified burdens impacting society as well.

The American middle class has grown when labor scarcities
have driven real wages higher. This has created opportunities for upgrading
skills, (useful) education, prosperity, and investment, while at the
same time driving innovation. Contrary to President Obama’s eloquent
confusion, amnesty and the massive increases in additional legal and
illegal immigration that follow it are totally inconsistent with middle
class prosperity.

Beware of those who claim high levels of unskilled
labor importation are necessary for the economy. Follow the money and
the political motives.

Myth 3. Republicans can win Hispanic votes by favoring amnesty

Barack Obama owes his 2008 and certainly his 2012
election to dim-witted and corrupt immigration policies going back as
far as 1965. The 2012 election revealed that out-of-control immigration
was at least near the tipping point of changing the electorate to a
Democrat dominated social-welfare constituency.

The 1965 Immigration Act put aside a sane policy allowing
immigration preference to spouses, children, and sometimes parents to
one extending the preference to an unending chain of siblings, in-laws,
and their families. The impact changed the character of U.S. immigration.
This “Chain Migration” resulted in massive legal and illegal immigration
almost exclusively from third-world countries. Whole villages from India
and Mexico immigrated to the United States. The new wave of immigrants
was predominantly less educated and less skilled than previous immigrants.
Rapidly increasing legal and illegal immigration and amnesties began
to create an electoral constituency heavily favoring Democrat social-welfare
and tax policies.

The 1986 Immigration Reform Control Act proposed about
1.1 million amnesties. Political pressures and wanton document fraud
(at least 25 percent), resulted in a total of 2.7 million amnesties.
It was followed by six supplementary amnesties from 1994 to 2000 with
more than 3.0 million additional amnesties. President Obama recently
gave an unlawful administrative amnesty to over one million illegals.
The cumulative effect has been more voters who are primarily attracted
to the Democratic Party’s social-welfare spending programs.

Recent immigration history also indicates that Republicans
do not improve their Hispanic vote by favoring, sponsoring, or signing
amnesties. They actually do worse as Bush I and McCain experienced in
1988 and 2008. Hispanics consistently vote 60 to 75 percent for big-government
social-welfare candidates.

Republicans are not going to make a constituency
that favors Obamacare by a whopping 69 to 23 percent margin into Republicans
by becoming immigration squishes.

Republican failure to oppose immigration policies
that have built a huge Democrat-leaning social-welfare constituency
has resulted in the position they are in now. If Texas goes Democrat
on Hispanic votes, Republicans can never win a Presidential election
again except by out-welfaring and out-pandering the Democrats.
But voting for amnesty or other cowardly immigration policies will only
make certain the Republican loss of Texas and many other states in 2016.
Even worse, they will have lost the confidence and respect of their
conservative base, imploding the party from within. Motivating their
conservative constituency, not surrendering their principles, is the
only honorable and promising path. A hard and principled fight is altogether
preferable to amnesty-suicide.

In 1850 a slave cost the equivalent of $40,000 (£25,000) of today's money

==============================

Abolitionist Moncure Conway (1832 -1907) saw
deeper into the question of immediate emancipation than most of his
contemporaries. A Virginian who fell under the spell of
transcendentalism and Unitarianism, he rightly sensed that the more
fierce the North’s desire to subjugate the South became, the more the
black man would be used as a weapon to achieve their goal of political
supremacy. The postwar Union League which incited Southern blacks
against their white neighbors followed this stratagem, against which the
Ku Klux Klan became the predictable antidote.

Bernhard Thuersam, Chairman
North Carolina War Between the States Sesquicentennial Commission
www.ncwbts150.com
"The Official Website of the North Carolina WBTS Sesquicentennial"

War – Even if Slavery Were Removed As An Issue:

“Conway’s disenchantment with the Northern cause began in 1862 when his
deep-seated hatred of war came again to the fore, overcoming his
bellicosity of the previous year. In April, he wrote to Charles Sumner
on his recent lecture tour “a growing misgiving that a true peace cannot
be won by the sword in an issue of this nature.” His second book, The
Golden Hour, which was published that same year, displayed an increasing
concern with the evils of war.

“The moralization of the soldier,” Conway now wrote, “is the
demoralization of the man. War is the apotheosis of brutality….Should we
continue this war long enough, we shall become the Vandals and Hessians
the South says we are.”

Complaints about the low morale of the troops meant to him simply that
the Northern soldier was still civilized and under the influence of
Christian morality. The inescapable conclusion was that the longer the
war continued, the more savage and brutalized the North would become.
Here he generalized the insight at the end of The Rejected Stone that if
emancipation did not come before it became a “fierce” necessity, it
would reflect war passions rather than benevolence.

After the President did take up his pen and sign the [proclamation],
Conway felt that it was too little and too late. In part this may have
reflected his disappointment that the war continued as fiercely as ever;
for he had refused as an optimistic humanitarian to believe that the
eradication of one evil might require acceptance of another. A case can
be made for the theory that Lincoln framed and enforced his edict in
such a way that the fewest possible slaves would be freed – while at the
same time taking the bite out of antislavery criticism of the
administration.

By April 1863, when he sailed for England as an unofficial envoy of the
American abolitionists, Conway was completely fed up with the bloody
conflict which e saw as inflicting terrible damage on the South without
adequate justification…and in any case, war was a worse evil than
slavery.

Soon after arriving in England, Conway stirred up a hornet’s nest by
making a peace offer to James M. Mason, the Confederate envoy, which he
innocently misrepresented as coming from the American abolitionists.
Conway proposed to Mason that if the South would abolish slavery on its
own, the antislavery men of the North would “immediately oppose the
further prosecution of the war…..”

The storm that broke over the head of poor Conway was something from
which he never fully recovered. Almost to a man the abolitionists
condemned and repudiated his offer. Conway now understood, apparently
for the first time, that many of the abolitionists were devoted to a war
which would crush the South even if slavery were removed as an issue.”

In
what is said to be a first of any school system in Ohio, the Montpelier
Exempted Village Schools Board of Education approved the carrying of
handguns by its custodial staff.

On January 9, 2013 the board voted unanimously, 5-0, to allow handgun
training for four custodians in order for them to carry weapons at the
Williams County K-12 school after the shooting that took place in
December at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut.

The design of arming the custodians is to thwart incidents of
violence and prevent tragedies like the one that occurred in Newtown,
school official claim.

“Sitting back and doing nothing and hoping it doesn’t happen to you
is just not good policy anymore. There is a need for schools to beef up
their security measures,” Superintendent Jamie Grime said. “Having guns
in the hands of the right people are not a hindrance. They are a means
to protect.”

School board President Larry Martin said, “Our main goal is to offer
safety for our students while they are in the classrooms and in the
building. We have to do something and this seems like the most logical,
reasonable course to go with.”

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch
today released previously unseen USDA videos revealing a compulsory
“Cultural Sensitivity Training” program requiring USDA employees to bang
on tables, chanting in unison “The pilgrims were illegal aliens” while
being instructed to no longer use the word “minorities,” but to replace
it with “emerging majorities.” Judicial Watch received the videos
pursuant to a May 18, 2012, Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.

The sensitivity training sessions, described as “a huge expense” by diversity awareness trainer and self-described “citizen of the world”
Samuel Betances, were held on USDA premises. The diversity event is
apparently part of what USDA Secretary Tom Vilsack described in a memo
sent to all agency employees as a “new era of Civil Rights” and “a
broader effort towards cultural transformation at USDA.” In 2011 and
2012, the USDA paid Betances and his firm nearly $200,000 for their part in the “cultural transformation” program.

USDA Training Administrator, Vincent Loran, in an October 10, 2011,
email previously revealed by Judicial Watch, asked Betances for a copy
of a training video vowing to keep it secret. “It will not be used for
or show [sic] in any way shape or form,” Loran promised. Nevertheless,
Judicial Watch was able to obtain the video. Highlights from the video
of the taxpayer-financed diversity training include:

USDA Sensitivity Training Video Excerpt 1 – “If
you take a look at all of you here and you think about your salaries
and your benefits and what you have left undone – plus my fee – plus the
expense of the team that putting the video together, this is a huge expense.”

Ever since the early 1980s
when 32 out of the necessary 34 states (two-thirds) had petitioned
Congress to call a constitutional convention (con-con) for the purpose
of proposing a balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the Constitution, no
other movement has come close to getting 34 states to issue a call for a
con-con for the same specific purpose. In fact nearly 20 states have
gone on to pass resolutions rescinding all of their previous con-con
calls.

Now in 2013 a much more complex approach to calling a con-con for the
purpose of proposing a BBA to the Constitution has been announced by the
Compact for America Initiative. Click on image at left for "How the
Compact for America Threatens the Constitution," an article from the
January 21, 2013 issue of The New American, to learn more.

The new Compact for America (CFA) Initiative has an ambitious plan for
getting 38 states to pass their legislation this year in time for
holding a constitutional convention in Dallas on July 4, 2013. As of
February 6, CFA reported that CFA bills have been drafted or introduced
in four states: Arizona, Connecticut, Georgia, and New Mexico. They also
reported that the following seven states are getting close to
introducing a CFA bill: Idaho, Kansas, Maryland, Oklahoma, North Dakota,
Texas, and Virginia. Even if your state is not in this list, chances
are good that you'll have a CFA bill introduced in your state sometime
soon

The basic argument against convening an Article V constitutional convention
is that based on the right of the sovereign People in convention to
alter their government whenever it fails to secure our rights (as
proclaimed in the Declaration of Independence), an Article V
constitutional convention could not be limited as to what amendments
might be proposed, and therefore could lead to the proposal and
ratification of dangerous alterations to the Constitution. The Article V
requirement that three-fourths of the states must ratify any new
amendment would not necessarily protect us from harmful amendments
because, just as our original Constitutional Convention did in 1787, any
new constitutional convention could prescribe an entirely new
ratification procedure, such as holding a national referendum.

View the video (image above) of Harvard Prof. Laurence Tribe's 15-minute
speech at the Harvard Conference on the Constitutional Convention on
September 24, 2011, where he provides a whole list of reasons to avoid
calling an Article V constitutional convention.

You can find additional information about the current status of the JBS
action project to defeat any state or federal legislation to bring about
a constitutional convention at "Choose Freedom -- STOP A CON-CON" on JBS.org.

You are invited to participate in a "National Visit Your State Legislator Day"
on February 20, which is being organized by JBS staff and members
across the nation. The purpose of visiting state legislators on this day
is to inform them about how the Compact for America con-con initiative,
and any other con-con calls as well, threaten the Constitution. Click here to get in touch with JBS staff and members in your area.

If you agree with us that holding a constitutional convention would pose
an unacceptably high risk of damage to the Constitution, please send an email to your state legislators in opposition to the Compact for America and any other con-con bill as well.

Remembrance

To die for one’s country is not only an act of bravery, it is THE act of bravery. For soldiers, it is just an extension of their military career, a part of their duty. As leaders have asked their soldiers to sacrifice themselves for the good of the society, it is only right for leaders to go through the same motion. They should practice what they have preached.

As war is seen as a noble act, tu sat serves as redemption in case of defeat. It is also a way to tell the enemy: “You might have won the battle/war but you don’t deserve to win because you don’t have the chinh nghia (just cause).” And it is not only just cause: it is the moral belief that the cause they are fighting for deserves their total sacrifice. Continues below

Follow by Email

Counter

Core Creek Militia

==============================My sixth great grandfather, his wife, and five of his six children were killed in battle with the Tuscarora Indians at Core Creek, NC.

The Seven Blackbirds

==============================My third great grandfather was an Ensign in the Revolutionary War, and saved his unit's flag after being wounded at the Battle of Brandywine. He was also at Kingston (Kinston), Wilmington, Charleston, Two Sisters and Augusta. He was at the defeat at Brier Creek and also Bee Creek.

Requiem Aeternam -
Eternal Rest Grant unto Them
==============================
My second great grandfather was killed in action on May 3, 1863 at the Battle of Chancellorsville.
=============================
My great grandfather and great uncle knew all the men in the "Civil War Requiem" video as they were part of the 53rd NC which was the sole unit defending Fort Mahone. (Fort Mahone was named "Fort Damnation" by the Yankees) *Handpicked men of the 53rd (My great grandfather was one of these) made the final, night assault at Petersburg in an attempt to break Grant's line. This was against Fort Stedman which was a few miles to the slight northeast. They initially succeeded, but reinforcements drove them back. This video is made from photographs which were taken the day after the 53rd evacuated the lines the night before to begin the retreat to Appomattox. I have many more pictures taken by the same photographer, one of these shows a 14 year old boy and the other is the famous picture of the blond, handsome soldier with his musket.
===========================
*General Gordon promised the men a gold medal and 30 days leave if they accomplished their task and many years after the War my great grandfather wrote General Gordon, who was then governor of Georgia about this incident. They exchanged several letters which I have framed. See first link below.
===========================
*The Attack On Fort Stedman
============================
"His Colored Friends"
============================
Lee's Surrender
=============================
My Black NC Kinfolks
============================
Punished For Being Caught!

Great Grandfather Koonce

He was a drummer boy in the WBTS, survived the War only to die a few years later. He was caught in an ice storm on his way home, but instead of seeking shelter, continued on his horse until the end. His clothes had to be cut off and he died a few days later.